If Continental Merges With United Will Houston Retain Its Headquarters?

[citykid09]

If Continental Merges with United will Houston Retain its Headquarters?

I would hate to see Houston lose Continental thinking that it would still be a major part of the combined company.

Don't give in and lose the Headqaurters like Compaq. When t was first annonced that Compaq would merge with HP and keep HQs in California, I knew it would not be the same for Houston, but everyone else thought the company would grow even more in Houston because its cheaper to opporate, but we all know that did not turnout to be the case.

The leaders of Continental need to be progress if they merge to asure that the newly combined companies Headquarters stays in Houston.

[musicman]

The leaders of Continental need to be progress if they merge to asure that the newly combined companies Headquarters stays in Houston.

ok is this part of the taks test?

[citykid09]

Just found this: http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...6caa15.html?npc

[Subdude]

When the decision is Houston v Denver as a hub, I would think it would have to be Houston. As for headquarters, it's hard to make a call.

[TheNiche]

When the decision is Houston v Denver as a hub, I would think it would have to be Houston. As for headquarters, it's hard to make a call.

Continental would be the stronger company and Houston would be the superior hub. We keep the HQ.

[Mark F. Barnes]

O'Hare is United's main hub as far as flights. They have a hub at Dulles also. IAH is in dire need of upgrades, Denver can handle more air traffic. United Being a bigger Airline handles nearly twice the passengers as Continental, and is already set up elsewhere and has a state of the art new airport at it's disposal (Denver), why do you think they would be inclined to move their ops to Houston? DEN has twice the number of runways and three times the land for future expansion (34,524 acres)? If the choice is left up to United, they will stay put in Denver and O'Hare. If there is a merger they may have to operate with four hubs or possibly do away with Dulles and stay with three (including IAH). IAH Currently handles more non-stop international flights than DEN, however that could easily change with DEN expansion that is already in progress. IAH is building a thing, and hasn't had a major face-lift since 1981! IAH is way over crowed as it is. It couldn't handle the extra flights to be a main hub for United, now United may make IAH a hub for the Mexican and South American routes, but that will more than likely be the extent of that. But as a HQ or main hub, it's out of the question. IAH just can't handle the flight load. And there are no provisions to expand like an ORD or DEN, they are pretty much land locked.

Niche, just how is Continental the stronger company? United handle nearly double the passengers! United has the newer fleet, and 100 more planes than Continental. I don't get it.

[Trae]

Just a quick comparison between the two airlines will show why Niche said that. United may be larger, but it isn't a healthier airline.

[NewMND]

Isn't Continental involved in the community a lot, such as with charities and the like? I hope Continental stays independent. United and Northwest are the only airlines I hate with a passion.

[ricco67]

I have to agree with Niche said, United is larger, but they have had a history of being on the edge financially.

Continental has been rather consistent with earnings and seems to have a very good rapport with its employees and that is very important in the long run.

IAH is actually ready for a substantial expansion by adding at least 3 more terminals and 2 runways. This will help with travel over the Atlantic and southern america, but I don't know how it would really compare to DEN's ability with international flights.

As much international travel that Houston has, I can't see how it would NOT remain a hub for a major airline that is already as dominant at CO. here in Houston.

Okay, time for coffee.

[BryanS]

I have to agree with Niche said, United is larger, but they have had a history of being on the edge financially.

Continental has been rather consistent with earnings and seems to have a very good rapport with its employees and that is very important in the long run.

IAH is actually ready for a substantial expansion by adding at least 3 more terminals and 2 runways. This will help with travel over the Atlantic and southern america, but I don't know how it would really compare to DEN's ability with international flights.

As much international travel that Houston has, I can't see how it would NOT remain a hub for a major airline that is already as dominant at CO. here in Houston.

Okay, time for coffee.

Continental is going for network expansion (and operating out of existing hubs that they have + what they acquire), that will keep them competitive. So the hubs all stay (IAH will always be a main hub for CO). The question then becomes: Houston or Chicago for the HQ (provided United is the merger partner)? From a cost of living stand point, and a cost of business standpoint, Houston wins hands down... not sure how the Chicago employees would feel about moving down here though... That should be interesting. If HQ operations get moved to Chicago, then it will be for one reason: we don't want to live in Houston.

Regarding United being "on the edge financially" ... If CO comes out on top; they should be able to clean things up (by taking advantage of this near foreclosure-type of scenario)... They are very proud of the fact that they actually made a profit last year vs. everybody else (and except Southwest, of course).

[ToryGattis]

Hold on folks. There is no conflict between Denver and IAH. CAL used to have hubs at both, and only gave up on DEN because UAL was bigger than them there. A CAL-UAL merger would have a nice set of well-spaced hubs in major cities, certainly far better spaced than Delta-NWA, which will have 5 hubs together in a relatively small zone. If any hub is at risk, it would be Cleveland, but I think it will be kept because it is still a very large city, and O'Hare is maxed out and under flight caps. I would certainly prefer to connect thru CLE over ORD any day - it has far fewer delays.

Just to get the facts straight: Denver metro is about half the size of Houston, with little international business and bad geography for feeding international flights. UAL is under tremendous assault in DEN from both Frontier and SWA. IAH has plenty of expansion capacity to become one of the busiest airports in the world, with up to 7 runways. Houston also has far more O&D traffic, esp. international from the energy business. CAL also has the youngest fleet of the majors.

CAL is widely acknowledged as the superior management teams, esp. by Wall Street. That said, HQ is an issue. UAL just signed an incentive deal with Chicago to move their HQ downtown, and they are locked in with big penalties if they leave. Hopefully the HQ will still stay in Houston, but an alternative could be a dual-HQ, for financial and political reasons - kind of like Haliburton is doing with Houston and Dubai. Hi-def telepresence technology makes it very practical today.

As far as the name, United is known by more people globally, but Continental is more respected. I think "Continental United" would be a fine name that could unify both brand values. Implies "unifying the continents", which is a great image for an international airline.

There has also been some talk of a merger like Air France-KLM, which keeps the two companies separate under a parent. Not quite as many cost synergies, but it eliminates a *lot* of the pitfalls of airline mergers.

[Houston19514]

Hold on folks. There is no conflict between Denver and IAH. CAL used to have hubs at both, and only gave up on DEN because UAL was bigger than them there. A CAL-UAL merger would have a nice set of well-spaced hubs in major cities, certainly far better spaced than Delta-NWA, which will have 5 hubs together in a relatively small zone. If any hub is at risk, it would be Cleveland, but I think it will be kept because it is still a very large city, and O'Hare is maxed out and under flight caps. I would certainly prefer to connect thru CLE over ORD any day - it has far fewer delays.

Just to get the facts straight: Denver metro is about half the size of Houston, with little international business and bad geography for feeding international flights. UAL is under tremendous assault in DEN from both Frontier and SWA. IAH has plenty of expansion capacity to become one of the busiest airports in the world, with up to 7 runways. Houston also has far more O&D traffic, esp. international from the energy business. CAL also has the youngest fleet of the majors.

CAL is widely acknowledged as the superior management teams, esp. by Wall Street. That said, HQ is an issue. UAL just signed an incentive deal with Chicago to move their HQ downtown, and they are locked in with big penalties if they leave. Hopefully the HQ will still stay in Houston, but an alternative could be a dual-HQ, for financial and political reasons - kind of like Haliburton is doing with Houston and Dubai. Hi-def telepresence technology makes it very practical today.

As far as the name, United is known by more people globally, but Continental is more respected. I think "Continental United" would be a fine name that could unify both brand values. Implies "unifying the continents", which is a great image for an international airline.

There has also been some talk of a merger like Air France-KLM, which keeps the two companies separate under a parent. Not quite as many cost synergies, but it eliminates a *lot* of the pitfalls of airline mergers.

You got everything right, Tory. But I don't think their HQ deal with Chicago would be much of a hurdle at all. From what I have read, the penalty is not very big at all, especially in the context of a multi-billion dollar merger. Plus, did I not read that Continental has some kind of similar deal with Houston?

[Houston19514]

O'Hare is United's main hub as far as flights. They have a hub at Dulles also. IAH is in dire need of upgrades, Denver can handle more air traffic. United Being a bigger Airline handles nearly twice the passengers as Continental, and is already set up elsewhere and has a state of the art new airport at it's disposal (Denver), why do you think they would be inclined to move their ops to Houston? DEN has twice the number of runways and three times the land for future expansion (34,524 acres)? If the choice is left up to United, they will stay put in Denver and O'Hare. If there is a merger they may have to operate with four hubs or possibly do away with Dulles and stay with three (including IAH). IAH Currently handles more non-stop international flights than DEN, however that could easily change with DEN expansion that is already in progress. IAH is building a thing, and hasn't had a major face-lift since 1981! IAH is way over crowed as it is. It couldn't handle the extra flights to be a main hub for United, now United may make IAH a hub for the Mexican and South American routes, but that will more than likely be the extent of that. But as a HQ or main hub, it's out of the question. IAH just can't handle the flight load. And there are no provisions to expand like an ORD or DEN, they are pretty much land locked.

Niche, just how is Continental the stronger company? United handle nearly double the passengers! United has the newer fleet, and 100 more planes than Continental. I don't get it.

Wow, there is so much wrong with this post, it's a little hard to know where to start.

Have you been to IAH since 1981? Since that time, Terminal A has been totally rebuilt/remodeled. Terminal B has been totally remodeled. The interior of Terminal C has been totally remodeled, with more coming in the next year or so and the exterior is scheduled for re-do in the next year or so. Terminal D was added. Terminal E was added. The new Federal Inspection Service building was added. Several new parking structures were added. The consolidated rental car facility was built....

As others have mentioned, there is room, and a master plan, for plenty more expansion at IAH, including at least 2 additional runways, one of which is already in the works. That will bring IAH to seven runways. It is already one of the very few (I think 2) airports in North America that can handle 3 simultaneous instrument landings. (FWIW, IAH has 5 runways; DIA has 6 runways... not exactly twice the number, that you stated.) The current Master Plan would allow IAH to easily handle at least 68 Million passengers per year (IAH handled 43 Million last year). No provisions to expand, indeed.

Denver is highly unlikely to ever surpass IAH in international traffic. As others have noted, the Denver market does not have nearly the international O&D traffic that Houston has.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Wow, there is so much wrong with this post, it's a little hard to know where to start.

Have you been to IAH since 1981? Since that time, Terminal A has been totally rebuilt/remodeled. Terminal B has been totally remodeled. The interior of Terminal C has been totally remodeled, with more coming in the next year or so and the exterior is scheduled for re-do in the next year or so. Terminal D was added. Terminal E was added. The new Federal Inspection Service building was added. Several new parking structures were added. The consolidated rental car facility was built....

As others have mentioned, there is room, and a master plan, for plenty more expansion at IAH, including at least 2 additional runways, one of which is already in the works. That will bring IAH to seven runways. It is already one of the very few (I think 2) airports in North America that can handle 3 simultaneous instrument landings. (FWIW, IAH has 5 runways; DIA has 6 runways... not exactly twice the number, that you stated.) The current Master Plan would allow IAH to easily handle at least 68 Million passengers per year (IAH handled 43 Million last year). No provisions to expand, indeed.

Denver is highly unlikely to ever surpass IAH in international traffic. As others have noted, the Denver market does not have nearly the international O&D traffic that Houston has.

I am in and out of IAH anywhere from 8 to 12 times a month. I fly both CAL and UAL, I fly in to DEN twice a month, haven't been to O'Hare in about 5 years so I can't say much else about it. That was a typo on my part on the 1981 it should have been '91. I don't consider adding some more parking (600 spaces woo-hoo) and all the homeland security crap, that by the way is some of the worst I have been through, a major face lift. Nor is adding 900 ft of runway, IAH needs some severe work. Please don't try to sit there and say the band-aide fixes they have been doing to try and keep their heads above water is some kind of huge overhaul. Most of the patchwork fixes they have done will be torn down in a couple of years. IAH does have the best shuttle service I have seen anywhere with the exception of DEN, they are both good on those parts. However in another thread here, good old Houstonians were griping about that. The automated tram at DEN needs to be looked at by IAH, it really works well. DFW is one of the worst I have seen, along with LAX. Heathrow is 50/50 in my book, Dubai is in my opinion the best. I do love the new route to DXB, and the new airport they are building (Dubai World Central International Airport) will be far and above the rest. They spare no expense over there.

You really need to take off the blinders and take an honest evaluation of IAH and compare them to other International Airports in the world and see how far behind they (Terminal E) are in the world of modern transportation. Texas is my home IAH is my home airport. So don't jump up on your desk and beat your chest thinking this is any kind of poke at Houston in general. IAH just needs to get caught up. I have lived all over the world in my 30+ years in the Petroleum Industry and travel a lot, I would say way above average. (consistently above 180,000 miles annually, when I worked a rotation out of the middle east is was way more than that)). IAH is not equipped to handle the new A380's and haven't heard of any preparations of any future of retrofitting for airways for double-decker loading. A380's are coming and they better get ready, opening up the direct to DXB and other international non-stops will bring in more777's and A380-900's when they are ready, they are the future. Emirates has a standing order for A380's especially in the 900 series which is the monster (and will have the NS range lacking in the previous 380's). Now IAH can get away with the shorter runways because there is a lot of thermal lift because of the ambient ground heat. When we do get our few days of winter, the big boys have to use every inch of 15L/33R. The loaded super jumbos (777's) with a full fuel load take space. You have to understand, IAH is not going anywhere (as in leave) no matter who merges with who, the success of the sold out flights and the strong advance bookings to DXB clearly show that Houston is a dynamic market. Being the energy capital it will insure this market will stay steady. IAH is just going to have to bite the bullet and get busy with the centralized passenger handling terminal. It's not a funding issue, it's going to be a huge scheduling and logistical nightmare when any type of huge overhaul gets in full swing. Handling 42M passengers annually is no easy task as it sits right now, when you cripple it with a huge construction project like building a new terminal, it's going to be a nightmare, so get ready. When they starting shutting down sections to tie together the concourse, it going to be an issue. The long-term plans call for the existing unit terminals to be demolished and this will be a fun day getting in and out. Adding runway 8C-26C will help but there will have to be more done once they get the issues worked out in the terminal new construction.

Back on topic, Houston will not be a HQ for a merged UAL-CAL if it does happen. It will however remain one of the multiple hubs in the UAL system, but you can 86 the Continental-United name, that's dyslexia playing tricks on you. United-Continental (UCA) will be the name if the merger does happen. United is the world's second-largest airline by revenue-passenger-miles (behind American Airlines), third-largest by total operating revenues (behind Air France-KLM and American Airlines), and fourth-largest by total passengers transported (behind American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines). And they are both birth babies of Walter Varney, but the United Name has been around and is more known world wide, that's why I say United-Continental. JMO

And who is smoking what when they said Continental is more stable financially? Two Bankruptcies wince 1983? Thank God that they got rid of Lorenzo, he just about put the airline in the toilet. They have grown in leaps and bounds since 1993. Now United did take a huge hit during the 9/11 disaster, but they came out of it. I think if it would had been a lessor airline, they would have folded. That was a HUGE hit to them financially, who wouldn't it be. TWA is what saved AA from dumping, with their problems during 9/11. Mergers are a good thing as long as they are thought out well, and there is not some funny business going on and it turns out to be a big garage sale to liquidate outdated aircraft.

[Houston19514]

I am in and out of IAH anywhere from 8 to 12 times a month. I fly both CAL and UAL, I fly in to DEN twice a month, haven't been to O'Hare in about 5 years so I can't say much else about it. That was a typo on my part on the 1981 it should have been '91. I don't consider adding some more parking (600 spaces woo-hoo) and all the homeland security crap, that by the way is some of the worst I have been through, a major face lift. Nor is adding 900 ft of runway, IAH needs some severe work. Please don't try to sit there and say the band-aide fixes they have been doing to try and keep their heads above water is some kind of huge overhaul. Most of the patchwork fixes they have done will be torn down in a couple of years. IAH does have the best shuttle service I have seen anywhere with the exception of DEN, they are both good on those parts. However in another thread here, good old Houstonians were griping about that. The automated tram at DEN needs to be looked at by IAH, it really works well. DFW is one of the worst I have seen, along with LAX. Heathrow is 50/50 in my book, Dubai is in my opinion the best. I do love the new route to DXB, and the new airport they are building (Dubai World Central International Airport) will be far and above the rest. They spare no expense over there.

You really need to take off the blinders and take an honest evaluation of IAH and compare them to other International Airports in the world and see how far behind they (Terminal E) are in the world of modern transportation. Texas is my home IAH is my home airport. So don't jump up on your desk and beat your chest thinking this is any kind of poke at Houston in general. IAH just needs to get caught up. I have lived all over the world in my 30+ years in the Petroleum Industry and travel a lot, I would say way above average. (consistently above 180,000 miles annually, when I worked a rotation out of the middle east is was way more than that)). IAH is not equipped to handle the new A380's and haven't heard of any preparations of any future of retrofitting for airways for double-decker loading. A380's are coming and they better get ready, opening up the direct to DXB and other international non-stops will bring in more777's and A380-900's when they are ready, they are the future. Emirates has a standing order for A380's especially in the 900 series which is the monster (and will have the NS range lacking in the previous 380's). Now IAH can get away with the shorter runways because there is a lot of thermal lift because of the ambient ground heat. When we do get our few days of winter, the big boys have to use every inch of 15L/33R. The loaded super jumbos (777's) with a full fuel load take space. You have to understand, IAH is not going anywhere (as in leave) no matter who merges with who, the success of the sold out flights and the strong advance bookings to DXB clearly show that Houston is a dynamic market. Being the energy capital it will insure this market will stay steady. IAH is just going to have to bite the bullet and get busy with the centralized passenger handling terminal. It's not a funding issue, it's going to be a huge scheduling and logistical nightmare when any type of huge overhaul gets in full swing. Handling 42M passengers annually is no easy task as it sits right now, when you cripple it with a huge construction project like building a new terminal, it's going to be a nightmare, so get ready. When they starting shutting down sections to tie together the concourse, it going to be an issue. The long-term plans call for the existing unit terminals to be demolished and this will be a fun day getting in and out. Adding runway 8C-26C will help but there will have to be more done once they get the issues worked out in the terminal new construction.

Back on topic, Houston will not be a HQ for a merged UAL-CAL if it does happen. It will however remain one of the multiple hubs in the UAL system, but you can 86 the Continental-United name, that's dyslexia playing tricks on you. United-Continental (UCA) will be the name if the merger does happen. United is the world's second-largest airline by revenue-passenger-miles (behind American Airlines), third-largest by total operating revenues (behind Air France-KLM and American Airlines), and fourth-largest by total passengers transported (behind American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Southwest Airlines). And they are both birth babies of Walter Varney, but the United Name has been around and is more known world wide, that's why I say United-Continental. JMO

And who is smoking what when they said Continental is more stable financially? Two Bankruptcies wince 1983? Thank God that they got rid of Lorenzo, he just about put the airline in the toilet. They have grown in leaps and bounds since 1993. Now United did take a huge hit during the 9/11 disaster, but they came out of it. I think if it would had been a lessor airline, they would have folded. That was a HUGE hit to them financially, who wouldn't it be. TWA is what saved AA from dumping, with their problems during 9/11. Mergers are a good thing as long as they are thought out well, and there is not some funny business going on and it turns out to be a big garage sale to liquidate outdated aircraft.

Whatever your "opinion" of IAH, the "facts" you posted in your initial post were wrong wrong and wrong. IAH has done substantial refurbishment and growth since 1991, as well as since 1981 (the work on Terminals A, B, and C, the construction of Terminal E, construction of the new FIS, construction of the Consolidated Rental Car facility, have all occurred since 1991. Oh, and yes, they also added the third east-west runway since 1991. And aparently you don't like Terminal E and the new FIS for whatever reason, but the fact is IAH has the lowest average CBP passenger processing time of the top 10 US international gateways. That says SOMEthing good about IAH's new facilities.

IAH has 5 runways compared to DIA's 6, not merely half as many as you stated. IAH indeed has huge provisions to expand, contrary to your statement, including an underground automated rail probably similar to DIA's. (BTW, it is also not true that most of the recent improvements will be torn down under the Master Plan expansion... the new-ish concourses on Terminal A will not be torn down; the new concourses that will be built soon on Terminal B will not be torn down; Terminal E will not be torn down; Terminal D will not be torn down; the new FIS building will not be torn down)

Oh, and you're wrong on the A380s too. With the exception of double-decker loading bridges, IAH is prepared for A380s. No airline currently has any plans to fly an A380 to Houston and IAH stays in touch with the airlines regarding those plans so they would have plenty of time to have the appropriate jet bridges in place before anyone starts service to IAH with an A380. (And they can already load and unload the A380 at current terminal facilities using dual jet bridges, so they are fully able to handle A380s even if a carrier surprised them and announced A380 service next week.)

As to financial stability... who is smoking what when they think that the 1983-1995 time period or Frank Lorenzo are relevant to today's airline? Could not be less relevant. The fact is, United is the one with the recent bankruptcy. The fact is, Continental has been the most profitable of the legacy carriers since 2001.

The more I think about it , the more I think Houston should have a really good chance of getting the HQ of merged United/Continental. Continental is pretty widely perceived to have the better management (and the best management of the legacy carriers). The investment community is going to want to see Continental management in control of the resulting carrier. Now, if we accept that... it would strike me as foolish to choose a Chicago HQ. The resulting entity is going to need the full attention of the new management team. If you put HQ in Chicago, the management team you want (the Houston people) are going to be distracted by the move (deciding whether to accept the transfer, then dealing with moving their office, their management operation, their homes and families) when it is most crucial that they give their full attention to the airline. At the other end, you'd be moving them into an office that is being cleared out of United management, with all the attendant morale problems. For the future of the resulting airline, it would seem clearly better to choose the Houston HQ. I cannot think of a company that has ever attempted to pull off huge merger while essentially relocating its HQ at the same time and it would seem to be the height of foolishness to attempt.

[plumber2]

Frank Lorenzo, that union buster, blood sucking, asset stealing, profit skimming, wall street huckster of a CEO. y'all remember him.

[editor]

A bigger worry than the location of the headquarters is the quality of the resulting airline. United sucks. Badly. I used to be a dedicated United flyer (since ORD is just up the road). I probably racked up 200,000 miles flying around the world with United until two years ago. That's when American ramped up its operations and put United to shame. I haven't flown United since. Its prices are routinely higher than other airlines (sometimes double!), and the service is the pits.

I was never a huge fan of Continental, but it seemed to get me between IAH and EWR reliably. United cancelled around 1,000 flights out of ORD November. December was worse. And it wasn't because of bad weather since all the other airlines seemed to get along pretty well.

A study in contrasts:

On a Continental flight between IAH and CDG I ended up upgraded to an Air France flight.

On a United flight from HKG to ORD United kept me waiting 20 hours in HKG and then abandoned me in NRT at 2am with no hotel, no food, and no transportation.

Fear United.

[CDeb]

If a butterfly flaps its wings in London, planes are delayed at O'Hare.

[Mark F. Barnes]

No matter what you pull off the IAH propaganda page, Emirates had two dozen A380-900's on order and they will be heading this way if IAH can "really" accommodate them. The 900's are being ordered specifically for their extended range without giving up their cargo payload as much as the standard 380-600 and 380-800. With the booking for Dubai out of IAH off the charts as they are thus far, they are coming, mark my words. Will see how ready they are.

Besides United crap service, Denver is a great Airport, I really just don't see there's any comparison. Continental has better service than United by far IMHO, however we'll have to see if the cancer of crappy service infects the latter. United could take some serious lessons in Customer Service, not necessarily from Continental either, they might try Emirates or AA, they really bend over backwards to help you. United could give a crap, and Continental has gotten worse than they use to be, but not near as bad as United. Sometimes I am forced on United when I round trip out of Jackson Hole. But there are times I'd rather Fly Frontier than Continental (pretty good Customer Service, and very accommodating however no first class service so I go with Continental) to SLC and drive up, which I do quite a bit. I use to keep a jeep in long term up there year around, I recently made a deal with Schlumberger that's let's me keep it at their hanger area, and are great about shuttling me with proper notice. Sometimes I get Lucky and catch their Mail Plane from IAH to SLC and that saves BS. Of course I approve a $100M in invoices with them a year, so they are glad to help. The real Kicker is when I can catch the Shell G5 straight into Pinedale on my short turnarounds. Then I don't have to put up with any airlines crap. And they have top notch Flight Attendant name Nancy that is easy on the eyes and serves a mean Chicken Parmesan that's to die for. But that's few and far between, frigging have to time that just right, they only fly up every other Tuesday and return that Wednesday.

For whatever reason I really can't stand Heathrow, maybe it's just me, or maybe it was too many 14-18 hour layovers there that turned me off. Having direct flights out of IAH to DBX makes my day by far. I just really want to see them ramp it up to catch up. Heathrow reminds me of the Mall on Christmas Eve, insanity. Denver is very user friendly, the moving sidewalk transverse the entire terminal, not just 40 feet of them, (exception given to Terminal E), but A, B, C, and D, are not passenger friendly as far as getting around, and if you have to switch terminals, OMFG, you better have some time. You can switch concourses at Denver and never leave the secure zone, if you change at IAH, you are back to square one. Evidently you don't get around much if you think IAH is user friendly. This merger has been in the works for almost two years, lets first see it happen and then go from there.

If a butterfly flaps its wings in London, planes are delayed at O'Hare.

True enough. LOL

[Houston19514]

No matter what you pull off the IAH propaganda page, Emirates had two dozen A380-900's on order and they will be heading this way if IAH can "really" accommodate them. The 900's are being ordered specifically for their extended range without giving up their cargo payload as much as the standard 380-600 and 380-800. With the booking for Dubai out of IAH off the charts as they are thus far, they are coming, mark my words. Will see how ready they are.

A, B, C, and D, are not passenger friendly as far as getting around, and if you have to switch terminals, OMFG, you better have some time. You can switch concourses at Denver and never leave the secure zone, if you change at IAH, you are back to square one. Evidently you don't get around much if you think IAH is user friendly. This merger has been in the works for almost two years, lets first see it happen and then go from there.

Just to keep the facts straight:

Nothing in your posting about Emirates says that they have plans to send any A380s to IAH any time soon. And, more to the point, you show nothing that contradicts either my or IAH's statement that IAH is prepared to handle the A380. Read the article I linked. Air France has IAH slotted as an alternative landing location for their A380 flights from Paris to Mexico City. One presumes they would not do so if IAH was not able to handle the A380.

The only part of the entire IAH terminal complex that one cannot get to without leaving the secure zone is the south side of Terminal A. The airlines housed in the southside gates are all non-Continental partners. Suffice to say, there are very few passengers who have to connect either from or to those gates from elsewhere in the airport. (there is currently secure-zone bus service to the north side of Terminal A; the TerminaLink train service will be extended there in the fairly near future, and I believe when that is done, there will be secure-zone access to all of Terminal A.) You evidently don't get around much if you didn't know that. ;-)

(And fwiw, I never said anything at all about the relative user-friendliness of IAH; I've merely been trying to correct your multiple and repeated misstatements of fact.)

[citykid09]

The last time I was at IAH I rode the little trian they have and its nothing to brag about. That thing looked like it was straight out of the 80s. The reson I rode it is because I had just gotten back from Atlanta's airport and theirs is top of the line. Atlanta's is like a mini subway system in the airport and the airpot is also way nicer then IAH. Agian, when I got back to the Houston airport I walked around and it was very 70s looking. All I saw that was kind of interesting was a cow statue in a space suit with a Texas flag in his hand.

Here it is, found it on the internet:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14eleven/306345144/

[Trae]

Houston's train now is like a light rail train. Did you happen to ride the underground system too CityKid (you know, there is one in IAH). Also, the expansion of IAH will likely include a system like what Atlanta has now.

And I think you were just really biased on Atlanta at the time. I read that thread you made when you came back.

[citykid09]

Houston's train now is like a light rail train. Did you happen to ride the underground system too CityKid (you know, there is one in IAH). Also, the expansion of IAH will likely include a system like what Atlanta has now.

And I think you were just really biased on Atlanta at the time. I read that thread you made when you came back.

I rode the one that goes to the terminal with the cow.

There was a nice are of the airport that I saw though. It had a fish theme with fake fossils in the floor and on the ways, but it was completely dead, no one was there.

[Trae]

Oh it was dead? Still, Houston IAH continues to grow VERY fast. I have never seen IAH dead when I am there. Besides, I would take IAH traffic any day over O'Hare, where everyday is a hassle.

[Houston19514]

I rode the one that goes to the terminal with the cow.

There was a nice are of the airport that I saw though. It had a fish theme with fake fossils in the floor and on the ways, but it was completely dead, no one was there.

I'll play along for a bit. Was the train you were on above ground or underground? (You have to have gone through security to get to the above ground train... you can tell it's above ground because (a) you take "up" escalators or elevators to get to it and ( you can see the outdoors from the cars... you know, grass, trees, sky, airplanes landing and taking off... You can get to the underground train without going through security. . . you can tell you might be underground by the fact that you take "down" escalators or elevators to get to it, and you can't see anything from the cars except the tunnels and stations.) ;-)

The original version of the underground train opened at the same time as the airport. The current underground train was installed in 1981. It was built by the Walt Disney Company and it is the same design as the PeopleMover in the Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland.

[citykid09]

I'll play along for a bit. Was the train you were on above ground or underground? (You have to have gone through security to get to the above ground train... you can tell it's above ground because (a) you take "up" escalators or elevators to get to it and ( you can see the outdoors from the cars... you know, grass, trees, sky, airplanes landing and taking off... You can get to the underground train without going through security. . . you can tell you might be underground by the fact that you take "down" escalators or elevators to get to it, and you can't see anything from the cars except the tunnels and stations.) ;-)

The original version of the underground train opened at the same time as the airport. The current underground train was installed in 1981. It was built by the Walt Disney Company and it is the same design as the PeopleMover in the Magic Kingdom's Tomorrowland.

It was a slow moving train and I gess it was underground. It wasn't up high. Why don't the get rid of that thing and upgrade.

[Houston19514]

It was a slow moving train and I gess it was underground. It wasn't up high. Why don't the get rid of that thing and upgrade.

LOL All in due time my friend. Eventually, it will be replaced with a secure-zone underground train. But in the meantime, what is the problem with it? Why should they be in any hurry to replace it?

In any event, next time you visit IAH, try to pay attention. You seriously don't even know whether or not you were underground???

The area with the "fish theme with fake fossils in the floor and on the ways" (did you mean to say "walls"?) sounds like the walkway connecting Terminal B with the A/B parking garage. Wow, that being dead tells us almost nothing about the airport, and the fact that you think its being dead is noteworty tells us a lot about you, your observational skills, and your point of view.

[dalparadise]

I've always thought his observations were like a slow-moving train that never goes up high.

[Jeebus]

The last time I was at IAH I rode the little trian they have and its nothing to brag about. That thing looked like it was straight out of the 80s. The reson I rode it is because I had just gotten back from Atlanta's airport and theirs is top of the line. Atlanta's is like a mini subway system in the airport and the airpot is also way nicer then IAH. Agian, when I got back to the Houston airport I walked around and it was very 70s looking. All I saw that was kind of interesting was a cow statue in a space suit with a Texas flag in his hand.

Oh God, not another one of those Atlanta threads...

[ricco67]

The last time I was at IAH I rode the little trian they have and its nothing to brag about. That thing looked like it was straight out of the 80s. The reson I rode it is because I had just gotten back from Atlanta's airport and theirs is top of the line. Atlanta's is like a mini subway system in the airport and the airpot is also way nicer then IAH. Agian, when I got back to the Houston airport I walked around and it was very 70s looking. All I saw that was kind of interesting was a cow statue in a space suit with a Texas flag in his hand.

Here it is, found it on the internet:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14eleven/306345144/

The 80's, eh? Then it was definitely ahead of its time considering that was designed in the 60's.

The new upgrades in the future will be interesting, whether they will be enough for anyone to appreciate remains to be seen.